who has a chance to be a good leader?
Some people could be naturally good leaders. Others believe that people can learn leadership skills. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
While some people believe that leadership skills are inborn qualities, others argue that they could be achieved through training or experience. Personally I agree with the latter view.
On the one hand, there are those who believe that great leaders are born with innate characteristics. Their reasoning is that what makes leaders great are not circumstances, but how their talents respond to those situations. In this regard, the attributes such as self-confidence, brilliance and integrity a leader possesses are already in them, so they cannot be learned. A salient example for this should be Winston Churchill. Many researchers claim that with his masterful speeches, he had his 'leadership gene' and personified the kind of leadership that led Britain to victory over Nazi Germany during World War Two.
However, I side with those who argue that training and experience forge one into a prominent leader. Take the case of Uncle Ho as an example. In the hope of finding a way to save Vietnam from invaders, he traveled around the world for thirty years in order to gain insights into Western countries. Under his leadership, Vietnamese people were successful in regaining independence, which makes him the greatest leader in Vietnamese history. This is a testament to the fact that the way to becoming a leader is not straightforward and leadership traits could be refined over time with education and persistence, intangible as they are.
As discussed above, it seems to me that leadership is a lifetime pursuit and good leaders are those who continuously improve themselves and sharpen their skills that would help them in accomplishing their goals.